Tuesday, May 30, 2006

I have spent roughly two years devoted to using the blogger format to bring information together and have shared some of the research I had been doing . Bring perspective to areas that while fragmented, brought some new perspective to furthering the issues.

But the question of whether this blogger shall continue while it has been compromised, has me wondering whether this effort should draw to a close as well.

If such efforts are not "corrected" and I will be giving this some time for reconsideration, then at that time, I will see whether my efforts should continue.

What is missing in regards to John Bachall, and here. Shall determine whether I will continue.

Anyway here’s is a nice picture while too, any information on John Bachall, reveals another very interesting man.

Why would one intentionally blur a picture that would help people, like Sean Carroll to understand as well as many others? If a image is "directly connected" to your site, then how has this infringed on what you had been saying? I too, wanted to increase the flexiblity of the internet, to encourage images in mind, to be connected.

This is the next stage of the internet that I see as useful. Why, I applaud Clifford's efforts, as well as the many who help us see and undertand the issues of science. It has to be highly visual. This has more impact then all the words you can combine, as well as makes the deeper impressions on the soul.

This relationship painted by Raphael sits in the Room of the Segnatura in Rome, called the Raphael rooms. You can type in the "Raphael rooms" at the top of page on the blogger and use that search function.

While I do not like to infer such attributes to the signatures the Pope signs, I do believe that the ancient mind tried to capture the deeper meaning of these individuals, Plato and Aristotle. As I try to do.

So what is the exercise here? What was happening in Clifford's mind when he wrote this thread? Was it about funding? Was it about the probabilities of life in the universe? Was it Lisa Randall's views on Brandenberger-Vafa? Hmmm.....

Wow this conspiracy is really taken on a life of it's own and has become really mysterious? Almost as if, "the tracking of the information," may have lead any mind to think that some ulterior motive and organization is behind the essential question on the authority of life developement in the cosmos? Qui? Non!

Or does it actually have something to do with the "Bad Twin" by Gary Troup? Check it out!

Wow, it is really amazing that I started out with Clifford's post and I actually ended up here. Using such meme's i our culture and convoluted the phrasing has some interetsing consequences if we cannot back to the original reasons as to why such a lamppost comment was ever made. It is a mystery for me because the road taken can lead in so many directions, never mind about the periphery of light to the edge that shines the key analogy..

While it may have been some time that now passes it is worth the mention again that "spintronics" has this role to play, yet, in gravity probe B, the spherical valuations would only now make sense on a large cosmological plate?

So by analogy usng Grvaity probe B we gain perspective onthe relevances of change within that gravitational radiation?

Yet, is is of some concern that when we travel down to such microstates, that we are able in fact to keep a pure and clean picture of what existed once, and had gone through the changes in "spin orientation and momentum?"

If the boundariesof the blackhole are indeed collapsing to supersymmetrcial proportions, then what use photon information if it cannot describe for us something that is going on inside?

Also, "the effect" while in the throes of gravity waves just to clarify the thinking(ocean waves and such), effects of Hulse and Taylor different, while the entanglement issue speaks to energy release is defined by photons passage of time as is?

What is the fastest way for it to get here without being influenced. Lagrangian perspective[Edwin F Taylors least Action Principal] and "tunnel transport" and effects of lensing?

Of course thinking about the nature of the types of high energy level photon(gamma) and what they can traverse through, may be confusing, yet distinctive?

The geometrical propensity of the energy needed in which to create this "jet" had to be consider in terms of a geometrical structure? Even though we could not say for certain what was taking place geometrically inside the blackhole?

So, in order for any secondary particle creation to be considered, what line of developement would issue from such a scene, as a gravitational collapsing bubble, that Coleman-De Luccia instanton may have been surmizing, could in fact, lead to a new universe born? The impetus for inflation?

New Beginnings?

So, cosmic rays sources were needed in which to move the ideas that reductionism has encountered in it's "quark gluonic plasma state," as well as, recognizing the microstate blackhole production that is initiated from such sources?

These images are held in relation to how article written in terms of the one below this, one gets the sense of how "high energy photons" are delivered to our place and time? Sources of cosmic particle tht would intiate particle collsions in our upper atmosphere?

Scientists Detect New Kind of Cosmic Explosion

Introduction of "new physics," was the main reason for how jet consideration had been talked about, between the gentlemen and I. Is it right, I am not sure? Having understood this relation in our talks on the Bose Nova, I was able of course to introduce the time and place of this "New Physics" in consideration(supersymmetrical-entropically it is very simple) and as a counter intuitive place of recogntion?

There are many links on, "new search paradigm page" to confirm this? Anyway on to what made me think of the "lighthouse(Link to tutorial site has been taken down, and belongs to Barb of http://www.airynothing.com) in the previous post" and brought me to thinking about this overall post here in general now.

So what is it we can learn about high energy photons. Kip Thorne was instrumental here in helping draw us a sequence of events in our cosmos and on the cosmic particle considerations? I couldn't help identify with this process.

Of course in order to capture the effects of high energy photons we need a vast array of area in terms of detector status, that we might indeed capture them. So ICECUBE is a interesting perspective here?

Now why would I combine these two things, and it is of course through a previous conversation that the ideas of high energy particles using our atmosphere for secondary particle realizations, could have capture the human eye so that one had to turn from the brightness? Look to the image below o pulsar sources for cosnideration.

Now of course it is just being put here for a minute, while I try and get my thoughts together on this.

But in the mean time, for those who understand what I am refering too, you might leave your comment and share what you think about this similarity? What may have been happening with "the light" as the snow boarders were doing their olympics?

Of course I thank those who help to push our perspectives forward. Often you and I will shall remain nameless. Isn't it rewarding that what could have been postulated by our "questioning stance," would allow others the chance to dig deep and dwell, about these things? That without you, the progression might not have ever made the light of day?

So it comes together, in some symposiatic toning of our reason?

Yes, we can operate, outside the box, while still fully conscious of what science is saying?:)

The "Butterfly Effect" is the propensity of a system to be sensitive to initial conditions.Such systems over time become unpredictable,this idea gave rise to the notion of a butterfly flapping it's wings in one area of the world,causing a tornado or some such weather event to occur in another remote area of the world.

The problem is when you at least think that a simple time entropically considered, can become increasing complex entropically, we see what lies around us today. But there are some problems when you go to that simplier time and there, you would think this is where chaos rules? Chaos would to me imply "discretism(?)" while continuity and flow of energy, understands the cohesion between all events?

To have foud a position of equillibrium in context of such a chaoctic entropically simple universe, to know, that such a place would allow information to have been squeezed through, and with it, all the potential information loss that was once confined, now set under geoemtrically propensities to become what it may be surmized as, "evolved," under certain conditions? Underthe aupsice, that it could exist, within cntext of the developing universe?

Of course this is a good read, and consistant with what we have to learn. So, all questions about such evolvement should end? Dangle a carrot, then see it's attached to a response that would produce consistancy in educative thinking?

Okay.

Not ony in measured values sent down to such reductionist valuations, but of no longerm limiting ourselves to how we see this birth? That may be the ole way Sean might have been taught(?), so maybe Veneziano had overstep his boundaries? :)

So then the question for me "is," if we held the view within context of the "arrow of time," are there such "cyclical processes," within context of the universe's unfoldment?

Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

So we have this "reductionistic process" about such beginnings, and we are limited to only one universe? How would different rates of evolvement then happen within context of the universe's unfoldment?

So I guess we develope theoretical opinions and speak in philosophical ways?:)

Each of the quoted paragraphs are directly linked. I wanted the science mind to be considered here, so I linked to my site in paragraph below and what liminocentrically structure means. A circle, with a dot in it, is a transcendant figure, once you move to the center?

Having this kind of information at hand, and being lead by the basis of "interpretations of death," can we not die and are born many times in life? Change?

If you had lost the ability to grasp the physcial processes in our real(illusive) life, and moved the spirit, thinking, it was physically capable, to only find that you pass through, what are you to surmize?

If such physical process was the corner stone of our thoughts, then such a shock, that "the transferance" from the "waking mind" that sees around now, would have passed onto the subsconcious mind(deaths mind)and that once, it was where we dreamed, now sees, it is this dreams that is "the mind" of the soul.

Shall life had been so scattered, and the events disenchanted as "events," one from another(discrete), then what use the outcome of interpretation of the dream world, and the chaoticness with which we had been effected and dreamed in life?

I always reiterate the "koan in life" that was most troubling, in regards to Greene's statement? By turning something inside/out, such a collapse to such a singuarilty has consequences for "information loss."

A new birth of "something old or in need of rejuvenation?) that is ready to turn? I don't see any of you, as any different.

Monday, May 22, 2006

That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

I mean sure we can say to ourselves, "that one day I was very ignorant" and I had all these speculative ideas about the "Golden Ratio," but then, I learnt the math and the truth of it all?

In "past life bleed throughs," it was very important to realize that while speaking in context of "overlapping," the underlying archetecture allowed for expression of those different interpretive assignments I had given. These were significant for me, because it help me to realize the "mapping" that we can unconsciously have revealled in such "experience dream/real patterns," that had one not be aware it, would have escape one's notice as a mundane realization.

You had to understand how "geometrical seeing" is held in context of Dirac's wording, to know that this tendency to draw lines at the basis of consciousness, was also evident in Feynman's toy model construction. It is something that we do, do.

So what did I learn?

1. That it revealled a model for consciousness, from the reality of the day, to the transcendant.

2. That it housed an experience in the way it can overlapped using "1" as a central pattern of emergence.

3. That present day models now use this schematic are psychologically endowed in speculation(liminocentrically structured), but has a basis in fact, as I am showing it here.

What sense would any of this "cognitive idealization" make, if one did not have some model in which to present, and know, that it was the underlay of all experience, and that the time of our day, might see us use it in topologically in different ways?

I used Sklar for this example.

But more then this what use is "Pascal Triangle" if we did not understand the emergence of "patterned numbers" from some initial beginning and cognitive realization, had we not recognized Pascal's model intepretation?

With no know emergent principals, or geometry arising from inside the blackhole, it was important that the basis of expression be realized as a pattern forming recognitive valuation? Is it right? I am not sure, but part of the developing model application had me wonder about how we could have encapsulated the cyclical nature of, what was collapsing into the singularity, was now actually, the motivational force for the developing new universe?

Sunday, May 21, 2006

In studying over the many years, certain concepts and ideas brought from other cultures stayed with me of course, while I explored the dream world enviroment on my own.

The idea here is that similar patterns used in construction of mandalic interpetations, serve to illustrate model applications, that when bleeding, overlap experiences, whether they be drean information gathered, or, historical correlations, these struck me as significant.

This is not to say that all people who dream will be good mathematicians, just that the road to cogitive realization held in context of Ramanujan should be seen as the developing subsconscious as a very important tool in moving the cogitive revelations that the creative mind can utilize, in developing math models for the future?

THatpattern had to be understood a dLimincentric structures as well. If you didn't you would not have seen the importance of the schematics that Liminocentric structures reveal of themself as mandalic models of intepretation.

Having heard of Ramanujan method of information gathering, it was interesting from the standpoint of how the consciousness could organzed itself and bring forth abstract notions(jumbling experiences in that dream world), to have the method of mathematical explanation bear tangible proof in our reality now.

This is of course are some of the ideas I have around cognitive recognitions of getting to the source of creation and bringing back tangible equative solutions.

Perhaps it is of some use for a example to better understand this?

While journalling for many years and recording my dreams, I came up with what I called "dream poetry," because I wanted to try and catch the rhythmn and story behind it as best I could without subjecting it to the scrutinization of my mind and analysis.

Of course having a pen and paper beside the bed was always good advice. There was always a definite difference in the lucidness of those dreams, that seemed to indicate this past life referencing, then the normal dream periods.

Also by doing this "awareness of the dream time" it became very pronouced in terms of the recall before getting busy with the day.

If one wanted to pursue it further then it makes sense that the Chaldni plate becomes a interesting piece of equipment in analyzing the nature of such vibrations. A balloon dipped in a dye solution and subjected to different sounds, has an interestig perspective to it.

I must admit this morning, I woke up with some questions around non gravitational effects, and how we would see this in relation to the two body problem. Now again, I reiterate, that as a student, I am going to make mistakes, but I am equally enthralled with the idea that a "channel of movement" can exist in our perceptions, where high energy considerations where I had previously thought only the strong gravitatinal influences could exist. Now I know there is more to this then previously thought and I lay out the perception built over this

Current experiments would have to say that our undertanding has changed a bit, by what we have currently and experimentally understood in our involvement as a measure of RHIC production, as philosphical endeavors to change what we now know?

In this regard then, Langrangian perspectve in the Sun Earth relation, had some interesting perspective developements that bring satellite travel into perspective, so too our energy consumptions, for extended deep space travel, more then likely as we now "see" these relations.

Yes, I had indeed created some of the understanding that arises from Time Variable measures, and how we now percieve the earth. Not as some illustrous pearl that was the first images of mind, as John Glenn peered upon this planet, but now, through understanding and measure, we "see" the earth in new ways.

Not only having understood the lagrangian perspectve, I found some relevance to how we now "see" in the cosmo, but here now too, I can speak on the "WMAP mapping system" as a functionable reality of this lagrangian perspective, being pointed out in those same maps?

Tabula rasa >(Latin: "scraped tablet", though often translated "blank slate") is the notion that individual human beings are born "blank" (with no built-in mental content), and that their identity is defined entirely by events after birth.

Yet it is in every moment that such information should have the ability to make it's way? The past allowable in what is created in that "one moment" has the potential to become the possibility of that future. They are inevitably liinked in you, as a receptacle of possibilites?

Let's say we wanted to bring perspective to quantum processes in terms of computerization? There's this image in mind and the logic forming apparatus that issues from a Quantum Phase Gate.

While I see the historical past, I also see it's application in how information processing might be philsophical endowed within mind? Is it right, I am not sure, but looking at such spaces if we can call it that, while there seems to be "no separation between the two photons of Alice and BOb" and spooky is being interpreted here what value, if such interjections of information could appeal in that "space" of the quantum phase gate?

Seeing the earlier contribution made on Venn Logic and TA I couldn't help but see some similarities.

In regards to mandalas as well in terms of Liminocentric structures. A historical perspective and one I gained from understanding Jung.

While this terminology may seem foreign, it is well within context of this information, that such similarites were deduced in my own research. So, by producing these maps, it became interesting to know that if they arose from the deeper realms of the subconscious these will make themself known as emerging principals(bubbles of thought) from the waters, what said that such things could not have been part of the history of the soul, to have regained what it had once done by finding that wholenesss of being once before?

Such research and developement if followed, leads one to the deeper understanding of what emerges from the very source of one's being. Details, the schematic drawings of lines and circles as such, to have them become modern day models, while they were once part of our history as human beings. Once, represented the complete and gathering of all the native tribes.

So as ancient as these things are to the mind for consumption in today's world, the thought process is not tainted by that historical past, but leads one forward, from past accomplishements. Pave the way for new models to emerge in society? New models to emerge in science?

How could information enter the synapse, as it does in the gate? It's computational significance in "backreaction?" One would have to recognize the work of Josephson and what tunneling could do? RHIC investigation ain regards to Laval analogies?

Spintronics and implying channelling would have spin orientated possibilties? What signature would have revealled the nature of any elemental if the energy transferred through that tunnelling effect, came from the very beginnings of the universe?

Immediately what came to mind is the reductionist views we have about the beginnings of the universe. The picture above, came to mind. And from it, all the ideas that I had been reading about when I had engaged the topic of the universe in question.

THis is a interesting question and if you read what anyone might of surmized, how different would this simplification of the question be, if it is holding all the answers to what really happened at the start of that universe?

Keeping sharp on the nature of speculations.:)Well of course "timing is everything" and if one ask a question in one part of the uiverse how could it ever been related to what Lubos writes in his? Well I have to speak to that:)

So right away seeing this is a good question to ask, and based on what one had been learning as they engaged science, how consistant would this story be with what is actually been taking place in science? One guess is as good as another? Or are there simplified versions that we could pass onto our children so that they understood the fullscope of this story of creation.

Now you must remember, as a student and a older one at that, there will always be mistakes. Being granted this reprieve for a time(writing our fiction?), while we look at the question asked, what do I think? Hmmmm.... interesting question.

So at the very top of this page there was a problem right away about such containment, and if I was to ask where and how would such conditions emerge for such a thing as the beginning of the universe to be known, why could I not explain it in my immediate environ, where cosmic particle collsions mimic what we are doing in our colliders?

Is this not simple enough to ask, that such a question could bring perspective not ony from the very beginning of our universe, but to have corralled it to what is happening now. These two things are very important to bring together so that we understand that creation exists in our terminologies, as if every moment has the potential to be created as it was in the very beginning of that universe.

Isn't this stance important to comprehend as I begin my story?

As I have been talking about, for so long, I wonder where it would end, that I soon learnt in mind that such a processes had to be cyclical in nature, yet, how could energy start off in place and go through all the phases to have become contained in the "possibility again" to continue this process.

So here this is another insight into the nature of my story.

One would have to have surmized the very beginning, and some might called is the sea from which all things arise and it is mythical in nature, that all life arose from this sea of possibilty?

Of course in my own artistic rendition, the shakespearean heart arose from my lips touched to ask. "To be or not to be," is not the question.

Of course I would have to give credit to Paul(not in the bible) for his early interpretation of the design shown above so as to wonder about such a procreative design to have said, "this is indeed the measure of our reality while we look back to it's beginning?"

So you needed this measure of "certainty" to ask how is it that such a beginning could have ever emerge from the "values of light" that it could contain information about our beginnings? I know it seems I may be getting too technical for the average Joe?

So it indeed becomes really difficult to contain the very expansive nature of the universe in such a boundary condition, does it not? So you look for the basis of reality in a way that allows such travel or "tunnelling" to help push the idea I have about my story of creation. It is parts and pieces of the that exemplify our ideas about the origins of nature, to wonder, if that energy began? Where did it?

It is very impotrant to set up the "nature of reality" as it began, yet, it is not so simple then to ask that if zeropoint had this basis of reality as well, what existed in this false vacuum, to have it exemplified the resulting information which travelled "through to the universe" as we now know it?

You had to wonder, and know that such phase changes began in the very beginning,and as the universe unfolded, to have given "all that is" a place in this timeline of expression, to have made it, to what is in the nature of the cosmo?

It did not mean that we could not find our moments and secondary showers from such a beginning, not to have traced it back and know, that this beginning point was really never so far away? They do it in the colliders. They have t account for this energy, and some of it is missing.

So containement was a problem, and with it we began to use these analogies for describing "backreaction." Oh, we have some mode of time travel here? Or, that we may have some idea about what is geometriclaly enhanced in our talks, to have actually followed the physics process?

Yes, I did that too.

I referenced tunnelling for very specific reasons, but alas, I too have to ask then that if such dissipated forces are the continued unravelling of that fluid state, then how would such information be released in the secondary shower effect?

The nature of our universe in continued expression?

That means that it left something somewhere for the false vacuum to have initiated the transferance of the original information, back, into the design of the cosmos?

I like analogies for that reason, and if some want to write fiction, while they hold other minds to the constraints applied in our reasoning of that science, then you should be prepared to suffer the consequence of what any mind like that of a Kaku, or Greene, in those extra story telling versions?

You will be targetted for all the insane things you might hence forward say. It's just somethng I noticed when I tried to go deeper into the world that science brings us.:)Scientists can indeed be unkind to each other?

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Imagine for one moment that this is all wrapped in a bubble(universe). Our views of earth, the hills and valleys, of the gravitational perspective, as I showed of earth as "time variable measure" now brought to conceptual realization for society.

Einstein's playful example of the hotstove, remember?

The picture you refer belongs to ISCAP and if you "refresh" that page a couple of times, you will see a number of pictures. They are important. Especially the "Lagrange points" How this perspective is used with satellites in space travel.

This is a very important perception that is not understood very well. I have another picture that will explain it well. I have maybe given to much to absorb here?

Hey hey

Do you believe that Einstein will last forever and that presently visualized elementary particles are all there are?

What happens on a cosmological scale is indeed explanable as I have shown.

The trouble is when we move our perception to the quantum probabilities. I surmized these things in context of how we would determined information from the horizon, yet the value of energy determinations here ask us to consider the value assigned to particle inclinations. These energy determinations are still valid within context of the conformal field theories, as the map shows of Bekenstein bound.

Blackhole production of course created some concern, while it was being answered in terms of strangelet developement. This spoke to blackhole production directly. But low and behold, how would any of us considered the context of the cosmic particle collisions that go on all the time, and from it, secondary particle showers that are presented to earth as microstate blackhole production, which quickly dissipates.

So you might have thought indeed strangelet production from microstate blackholes in terms of cosmic particle colllisions?

But the point is learning to identfy the very beginning, and like most I thought the singualrity was like a pea, while the energy valuation and quark gluon plasma created, has some effects that we have to consider? That were counter intuitive.

Produced tunnelling? :)

Thus, this changes the very dynamics of constructs that are being present here, in a philsophical format for consumption by a society that had reached critical density?

While the energy valuation here would created certain effects. How would you apply this to the sociological developement of a society that welcomes, and from it, is born new possibilities?

Paradigmal changes perhaps?

Mental Constructs

How would such a definition as mental construct find it's place among our interactions?

Would we not need some "mental construct," to say that if the processes exist and we are fundamentally part of that process, are there different ways in which to measure our valuations in relation to how we might now see earth?

So there is this "touching" in the way you have said it at a fundamental level and then there is the touching at another level? I am justing tryng to understand it from a frame of reference, yet the idea, ideal, is much finer in it's measure? Where did it begin?

When you engage Gauss's thinking, Gauss's coordinates, it is not without "seeing in ways" that one might not be accustomed too, that we ask, how might we treat this subject?

Yet, you look for "the consistancy" that is thread through all the geometric incursions we send our perceptions into? So what is this consistancy?

While we entertain these distances, quark to quark measures, how will this ocnsistancy of thought be held to "a measure" while we send perception all the way down to the reductionist levels, and find that such a fluid allows new physics and idealogical valuations to be now interpeted according to the measures enforced?

Of course the answer is very simplistic in my books and is one uesed to maintain this consistancy, yet, we would find there is no new geometry or new physics as far as we know, from that beginning point?

Monday, May 15, 2006

Most won't know of my particpation in bringing people together, to confront the basis of what models can do, and how these things can change perceptions. I, from taking a stance on such model assumptions, realize, that if held to any position most firmly, would not allow any other thought constructs to make their way into my mind.

That is the nature of such stubborness, not to have listened and listened well to the outcome of questions as to the basis of reality.

So, could I have said I had been changed by the interactions and posts implied, that these served as catelyscts for change? Most definitely.

It is here then such a credit should be applied to the links of Not Even Wrong, The Reference Frame, and Cosmic Variance that these have help to direct my attention to the constraints neeeded in our thought processes. Our pursuates ofwhat indeed lies at the basis of this reality. So I here Thank them most graciously.

It's Not Over Until the ......

I think what sounds silly, is that if one already understood that our observation of the basis of reality is indeed "seeing and being sightful of what already exists," while it may be indivdualistic, as a idea, such construct from appearance, could be manifested into other possibilties no doubt.

Playing with the illlusions, possibly? :)

But having such a view does not in anyway invalidate what may be implied or said about what a "God" might think? That may be the mistake? To think that what "we" think supplants what already exists as a potential?

Any "possiblility" would have been okay, had it been realized what one was doing, yet, being fully aware you are a particpant. That "creavtivity and imagination," are actualy tools that we use to desribe these indepth journies, to bring back the reailty of what could exist naturally.

I use paragraphs and picture sources as direct links and as secondaries.

I am pushing the boudaries of the internet. Forcing the issue of ownership as well as asking what new ways in which we shall use the internet. The basis of this thought held in regards to the visualization techniques, that amout from model consumption, and lead perspective into other areas.

Observation pays off?

If you look into the realities that we currently write, how are we to say that what truly lies at the basis of this "is" reality? Is what, if held to, "what lies beneath?"

Pushing them "beyond" what is currently accepted. What is held socialogically in societies construct thinking mind.

They(the teachers) would have to have known me to apply the constraints. While not given persepctve about my nature and methods, such constraints would have been from a position of mind(?), assuming it's value in relation to what is currently being desimmnated to the "public mind," as well as what is taught, is not being disrupted.